Sunday, March 6, 2011

Biology Teacher Jennifer Miller: Scientism in Action

Pennsylvania public school teacher Jennifer Miller testified at the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover trial five years ago. She teaches honors biology, anatomy and physiology at Dover Area Senior High School and for the past four years has chaired the school’s science department. Recently she had this to say to Scientific American:

How has teaching evolution in your classroom changed in the five years since Kitzmiller v. Dover?

Since Kitzmiller v. Dover I’ve definitely changed how I teach. The biggest thing is probably that evolution used to be the last thing we got to in the semester. Sometimes we maybe had one week or two weeks to cover it. Now I put evolution first, and I refer back to it to show how important it is to all topics of biology.

The other thing that I really think has changed is how I cover evolution. I'm no longer afraid to cover it in depth and to have in-depth conversations about evolution. I make sure I hit [the concept of] what is science and what is not, and how a scientific theory is very different from a "theory" that we use in everyday conversation.

A lot of teachers are wary of teaching evolution because of the controversy, and I was in that group—I didn't know if I could cover it, what I could say or couldn’t say. Now I do cover intelligent design, why it is not science, and why it should not be taught in a science classroom.

So intelligent design is not science and evolution is science. Continuing:

What are some common mistakes that teachers make in teaching evolution?
[…]

How do you see teaching evolution in schools changing in the next five years?
I wish that there were a lot more seminars so that people had more background in it. Maybe as we train new biology teachers—make sure that we give them what they really need to know—new teachers can arm themselves with the evidence that's out there. There is tons and tons of evidence for evolution, and it keeps piling up. As a teacher it’s hard to stay on top of that.

Tons and tons of evidence for evolution? That is certainly a happy coincidence.

What if the imposter had the “tons and tons of evidence”? And what if it was the “scientific” theory that was contradicted by the evidence? It’s a scary thought to be sure, but fortunately creationism is not only bogus science, it is also false. We all know the universe arose all by itself.

Fortunately we have public school teachers like Miller, backed by the wisdom of Judge Jones, to enlighten our children about these modern truths.

Evolutionists are very fortunate indeed, not only is their "theory" not contradicted by the evidence, their "theory" happens to be the only explanation allowed according to the "rules" of the the game. Very lucky indeed.

Evolutionists are very fortunate indeed, not only is their "theory" not contradicted by the evidence, their "theory" happens to be the only explanation allowed according to the "rules" of the the game. Very lucky indeed.

Wrong. Science is wide open to alternate explanations. Just make sure they are supported with positive evidence, and explain the large amounts of empirical data better than the current theory.

That's the part the IDiots just can't seem to grasp. It's not enough to just propose alternatives. You have to support them too.

Scientific American must be trying to give encouragement to the minority of biology teachers that are not skeptical about evolution.

Her comments appear to be nothing more than common party-line talking points.

To evolutionists, evolution is settled. To warmers, global warming is settled.

But the majority of people don't buy into the pseudoscience. It's been 150 years since Darwin and there are more skeptics now that ever before. The evolutionary ship is sinking and rearranging the deck chairs will not keep it from going under.

But the majority of people don't buy into the pseudoscience. It's been 150 years since Darwin and there are more skeptics now that ever before. The evolutionary ship is sinking and rearranging the deck chairs will not keep it from going under.

"In recent reading, Dembski and other ID proponents make the claim that evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 185 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 50 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order."

See the link for many examples how long the Cretos have been making this same stupid claim.

"What if the imposter had the “tons and tons of evidence”? And what if it was the “scientific” theory that was contradicted by the evidence?"

Well, that would really be something!

Hunter, what do you believe should be taught in public schools?

Previously, you've said:"Yes, ID should not have been taught as Jones rightly ruled, but that was inconsequential. I was not in favor of teaching ID long before the Dover trial, and I knew no one who was."http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/aubs-world.html

Why is it ID should not have been taught?

Is there an alternate definition of science you'd like to propose? One that would be useful and consistent across disciplines? What framework would you teach biology in, or should we teach observation without theory?

For one thing they have the same EXACT burden of proof evolutionists have but fail miserably to address. ORIGINS.

ID it would seem promotes itself as neutral(at least from what I've observed), but it can't be. The very first question to come up with ID is "Who was/is that Designer ??? Which god do they choose ??? Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu(actually have millions of gods), Taoism, Islamic Allah, some animist tribal nature god ??? And the list is endless. If not god, then is it aliens ??? Hollywood has provided enough fables and myths to last a life time.

If they decide on one, then how do they actually know what step by step proceedures this designer took on almost anything ??? This is also an endless laundry list of questions that are actually impossible to answer accurately and honestly (naturalistically) without some type of story applicational problems that evolutionism runs into presently. Ultimately why go anywhere there at all with any of the big three ??? Simply leave it out and science left alone. However, If they(creationists, evolutionists, IDists) feel the need to promote their ideas anyway, then create a separate science altogether and set up rules not allowing any infection, bias, predjudice, etc to infect any of the other sciences. Of course this will NOT happen. It's the nature of imperfect men and women with personal biased agendas and it goes equally all around for ALL three sides.

"Is there an alternate definition of science you'd like to propose?"===

Why not leave the definition as it is presently. Just follow and police the rules. Like "Scientific Method" which more often than not is never used properly DESPITE what the research papers(biased Stories) try and force feed us.---

RobertC:

"One that would be useful and consistent across disciplines?"===

Once again, just be honest and strictly enforce what is already present and which has already even been pointed out as it's definition by Cornelius. The problem is ideology, philosophy, wealth and power pursuits, etc get's in the way and we just never get an honest and forthright commitment to the truth.---

RobertC:

"What framework would you teach biology in, or should we teach observation without theory?"===

Once again, when it comes to biology as with any subject, just teach students how to properly observe how things work(minus the metaphysical bias of either side), function, what purpose all the natural world's various componants serve in any ecosystem, etc, etc, etc. Teach by employing practical application for what is observed. That's actually the best way to teach any subject.

Teach them to be patient, take their time and not rush into any conclusion by being pressured by profits, wealth creation(personal enrichment at any and all costs) or political power. Teach them to be disciplined when it comes to releasing a new discovery into our world and test for any future consequences which result from jumping the gun on introducing any product/idea which result in environmental ruin. Pharmaceudical drugs, the mighty Chemical Industry, GMO Companies, etc, etc, etc have a lousy history for employing any such strict responsible discipline as the degreadation of our natural world can attest. Having said all of this, DO NOT count on any of this to happen anytime soon. Or EVER for that matter, since it's simply not in the nature of imperfect humankind to behave properly!!!

Even if true, the majority of the people, including yourself, are too ignorant and/or stupid to be competent judges of the science.

Amazing. The insufferable pomposity of scientists never ceases to amaze me. And yet, their stupidity is bare for the whole world to see.

Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in Against Method: "...the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society."

Putting evolution on the back burner was a flawed teaching idea by Jennifer Miller and others. It's important for students to learn how evolutionary scientists interpret the data.

For instance, organic material was discovered in a fossil that is assumed to be 417 million years old. The discovery was a surprise, because microbes and other processes are known to break down the material.

Scientists didn't think this would be possible and rightfully so, but in order to keep it within the evolutionary framework, they changed their tune, invoking a miracle as a result of the failed expectation.

Not only is it possible for organic material to last 417 years but it could also last millions of years more! A 500 million years limit they put on it without any evidence! How would the likes of Jennifer Miller try to teach this weakness to her students?

"Scientists have more money, more authority, more sex appeal than they deserve",

Not at all. Your sex appeal is only apparent. Deep down you know you have none. You are just as ignorant and clueless as everyone else. You make up for it by being a bunch of insufferable elitists, not unlike many of the priests and wizards of old. Not everybody is fooled though.

When the thief is caught he says "Well what do you want me to do !!??"

What should be taught in public schools? Let's start by stopping the lies.

===Previously, you've said:"Yes, ID should not have been taught as Jones rightly ruled, but that was inconsequential. I was not in favor of teaching ID long before the Dover trial, and I knew no one who was."http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/aubs-world.html

Why is it ID should not have been taught?===

It won't help you get into college. Furthermore, while ID has various forms it is usually at a higher level than is appropriate for high school biology.

===Is there an alternate definition of science you'd like to propose? One that would be useful and consistent across disciplines? What framework would you teach biology in, or should we teach observation without theory? ===

If you want to teach evolution, then fine. But teach it accurately. The problem is not with teaching evolution, it is with the lies that you teach. If you taught evolution truthfully it would be great for science and education in general.

The rule of thumb for evolutionary thinking is that the evidence must reveal that a fully naturalistic origins narrative is compelling. In other words, natural law is sufficient to explain all of origins. Evolutionists do not say that the cosmos were designed but then here on earth life evolved with no design.

... but fortunately creationism is not only bogus science, it is also false. We all know the universe arose all by itself.

I am truly surprised and actually happy for you that even if with sarcasm, now you admit to being a creationist. The hypocrisy of talking about ID pretending that it is not creationism must hurt deeply somewhere. So I can't but congratulate you.

Maybe some time in the future you will openly admit that your continuous diatribe to convincing the ignorants that evolution is religious is mere rhetoric and inspired by a desperation to defend your beliefs. But one step at a time I guess. Again, congratulations Cornelius. One little step, yet you gained back a lot of my respect.

The rule of thumb for evolutionary thinking is that the evidence must reveal that a fully naturalistic origins narrative is compelling. In other words, natural law is sufficient to explain all of origins.

That's true for all scientific thinking CH. By definition science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Pretty disingenuous of you to single out just evidence that supports the ToE, wouldn't you agree?

Evolutionists do not say that the cosmos were designed but then here on earth life evolved with no design.

Wrong. Science says there's no evidence that life on earth evolved by conscious external 'intelligent' design.

You know the two statements are quite different but you keep presenting your bogus misrepresentation anyway. And all this time I thought Christians weren't supposed to lie.

Wrong. Science says there's no evidence that life on earth evolved by conscious external 'intelligent' design.

You are the one who is wrong, Thornton. There certainly is powerful evidence for intelligent design, lots and lots of it. The observation of similarities between species is very strong evidence for intelligent design. Why? Because what we know of intelligent designers is that they reuse previous designs over and over.

Maybe your science says there is no evidence for intelligent design, which is fine by me, unless you want to forcefully impose it on others with the taxpayer's money. Your science is chicken sh!t science from my perspective because it ignores the evidence. It should not be taught to our children.

CH: The rule of thumb for evolutionary thinking is that the evidence must reveal that a fully naturalistic origins narrative is compelling.

The rule of thumb for evolutionary thinking is that human reasoning and problem solving can be used to conceive explanations that better explain biological complexity than their rivals. Evidence is plenty. It's deep and hard-to-vary chains of explanations that explain evidence that are scarce.

CH: In other words, natural law is sufficient to explain all of origins.

And what is the difference between the supernatural and nature? The closest we can get to a meaningful definition of the supernatural is a boundary where human reason and problem solving cannot pass. We can explain how hydrogen atoms are transformed into helium atoms in giant fusion reactors billions of light years away, yet we cannot explain the biological complexity we observe right in front of us.

In other words, explanations are the only thing that can explain the biological complexity we observe. As such, supernatural claims exclude themselves as an explanation of anything in particular.

CH: Evolutionists do not say that the cosmos were designed but then here on earth life evolved with no design.

Again, "design" in the context you're using it is indefensible as an explanation of anything, let alone the biological complexity we observe. As such, evolutionists cannot say life evolved with "design" by virtue of it being a non-explnation.

Because what we know of intelligent designers is that they reuse previous designs over and over.

It is true that intelligent designers reuse previous designs over and over. It is also true that when intelligent designers are actually observed, the primary method of reuse is through horizontal transfer of the element(s) being reused. In other words, if some design element is found to be very effective, it tends to be transplanted from one design directly into another. Intelligent designers for the most part don't reuse designs by creating entirely new designs for almost every other element except for the one being reused, which is what we tend to see in nature.

But then again, an intelligent designer could potentially do whatever they want for reasons that only they could know, right? So I guess the fact that our observations of design in nature don't jive with our observations of design by intelligence doesn't really mean anything. That's what I love about ID; its attention to detail.

Wrong. Science says there's no evidence that life on earth evolved by conscious external 'intelligent' design.

You are the one who is wrong, Thornton. There certainly is powerful evidence for intelligent design, lots and lots of it. The observation of similarities between species is very strong evidence for intelligent design. Why? Because what we know of intelligent designers is that they reuse previous designs over and over.

Sorry Louis, but merely claiming "the designer coulda done it that way!" isn't positive evidence. An omnipotent designer could have done things ANY way. ToE offers a mechanism, a timeline, and two independent lines of evidence (genetic, fossil) that explains the observed patterns of similarity. ID offers "poof!".

I can give you many different observations that would falsify ToE. Tell us Louis, what evidence would falsify the claim "the designer did it that way"?

Maybe your science says there is no evidence for intelligent design, which is fine by me, unless you want to forcefully impose it on others with the taxpayer's money. Your science is chicken sh!t science from my perspective because it ignores the evidence. It should not be taught to our children.

Then come up with your own ID science and provide some positive evidence. What's stopping you?

But then again, an intelligent designer could potentially do whatever they want for reasons that only they could know, right? So I guess the fact that our observations of design in nature don't jive with our observations of design by intelligence doesn't really mean anything. That's what I love about ID; its attention to detail.

Don't forget the words of head IDiot Bill Dembski, the fig newton of information theory.

"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail!"

CH said, "If you want to teach evolution, then fine. But teach it accurately. The problem is not with teaching evolution, it is with the lies that you teach. If you taught evolution truthfully it would be great for science and education in general."

---

Perhaps this is why so many biology teachers avoid teaching evolution other than mentioning it as a footnote. Trying to speak truthfully about evolution is as challenging as pulling a clean piece of boloney out of a trash can. Most people just want to avoid the stink and move on with life.

What should be taught in public schools? Let's start by stopping the lies.

More and more lately Hunter has been dropping his transparent mask of objectivity and has been resorting to this kind of defamatory rhetoric.

Does he really think that Jennifer Miller knows in her heart that what she's teaching those poor adolescents is false, and is deliberately foisting lies upon them? What could her motivation possibly be? What kind of a monster is she?

Does he really think that Judge John Jones was well aware that Intelligent Design is true and evolution is false, but he deliberately lied when he ruled otherwise? What could his motivation have possibly been?

Alternatively, as Hunter has logically pointed out elsewhere, maybe these persons are not raving liars, but criminally insane:

Venture Free said, "But then again, an intelligent designer could potentially do whatever they want for reasons that only they could know, right? "

--

Evolutionists are okay exceptions to their theory by accommodating whatever they see. For example, the nested hierarchy is "objective" according to evolutionists except when it isn't. The nested hierarchy pattern found in nature is neither evidence for or against evolution because evolution so easily accommodates the many exceptions to the pattern.

The same is true of Design, while design can certainly accommodate the nested hierarchy pattern well it does not demand it.

But detecting design goes deeper and is more fundamental than what you suggest. Life is more than a mixture of chemicals, but highly organized systems. It's the difference between a rock and a rock tumbling machine. Mere nature processes can account for the rock, but it takes intelligence to make machines. One living cell is a marvel of nanotechnology that makes the best human computer design look like a cave drawing.

Pedant, sometimes a person repeats a lie, thinking that it is the truth because their information is wrong or whatever. I think that there are lots of sincere people that believe evolution is true, but sincerity does not make something correct.

Also, most people don't consider exaggerating the facts or denying problems as lying, but these are lies just the same.

Using "tricks" to get the result you want is all to common in evolutionary theory and global warming explanations. Evolutionists have been so clever at their rhetoric that they have created paradigms that make it difficult to think outside that box.

The annoying contradictions to evolutionary theory should serve a wake-up calls to think outside that box and not hunker down deeper inside it.

There are a few evolutionary folks that know their stuff well and they are NOT putting all their cards on the table. It is a shame when such people feel bound to the party-line because of money issues, career and peer pressure, or materialistic mandates. I'm confident that what these folks talk about privately at coffee is not what the public is told. Fearing that creationists will take over does not justify lying.

IMHO, the default explanation for life is design. Life has all the characteristics things that are designed. There is the purposeful integration of parts. There is highly specified complexity. It is very hard to explain this without design. The evidence fro design is there. Evolution is an attempt to explain the appearance of design wihtout actually coming on to design.

Are there any books I can read which concisely refute each piece of evidence for evolution? The reason I ask is because the arguments of commentors on this blog seem very one-sided to me in the sense that those arguing against evolution seem to be implying that absolutely every shred of positive evidence available means nothing.

I would love further reading where point-by-point the mountain of interdisciplinary evidence is thoroughly refuted. Does such literature exist? I'm very interested in seeing exactly what "non-evolutionists" are basing their thoughts on while staring the available evidence in the face.

I know this comment may sound sarcastic, but I genuinely am interested in understanding the logic behind disregarding absolutely all of the scientific data which spans multiple disciplines. And I'd preferably like to be referred to non-proselytizing sources. I am interested in factual discourse, and the ensuing logical interpretations. Thank you.

natshuster said, "Evolution is an attempt to explain the appearance of design wihtout actually coming on to design. "

Very well said. This goes along with what Francis Crick said about telling people to keep reminding themselves that what they see was not designed. Okay, then other than simply saying it, it behooves them to show how it actually happened. Some of the most exaggerated statements come from origin of life studies. They are so much over the top that they do rank as lies.

Brian, a very indepth argument for design of the origin of life as opposed to chemical evolution is found in Stephen Meyers book Signature in the Cell. More generalized would be Mike Denton, Evolution, A theory in Crisis. John Wells, Icons of Evolution.Mike Behe, The Edge of Evolution and Darwins black box.

A website with lots of resources would be Discovery.org

You said, "I'm very interested in seeing exactly what "non-evolutionists" are basing their thoughts on while staring the available evidence in the face"

A theory is best judged by the facts that contradict it and evolution has a boatload of them. A good lawyer can make a presentation in such a convincing manner that his facts seem irrefutable. That's why they have lawyers to represent the opposing side. Evolutionists don't want to be questioned about the validity of evolution itself.

Also, keep in mind that the theory is extremely flexible as to be able to accommodate nearly any finding using a number of rhetorical tricks.

To me what evolutionists present is not much more than getting people to believe that Willy Wonka's candy machines actually producing real candy.

Louis wrote: Yeah, well. This is one explanation that explains nothing other than your state of mind, that's for sure.

Louis,

Was this merely a quip or are you actually responding to anything I've said?

For example, does requiring explanations to actually explain things "explain" my state of mind? It's unclear how my state of mind can somehow cause indefensible explanations to become defensible or allow non-explanations to explain things.

Or perhaps my failure to reject the explanation of evolution "explains" a state of mind corruption by sin?

Sorry Louis, but merely claiming "the designer coulda done it that way!" isn't positive evidence. An omnipotent designer could have done things ANY way.

This is a weak and lame argument. We are talking about intelligent design here, not omnipotent design. An omnipotent being cannot design anything by definition. He/she/it already knows everything.

The use of a hierarchy is the quintessential design method used by intelligent beings. As someone who has made a living as a software engineer/designer, I can tell you that the primary method of software design is the use of a hierarchy. It's called object oriented design. OOD is not something that software designers use just for grins and giggles. It turns out that using a class hierarchy is the most efficient and most trouble-free approach to software design. And the efficiency and reliability of the hierarchical approach increase as our designs become more complex. How do we know this? Because we are intelligent. That's why.

Biological systems certainly show signs of having been designed with hierarchy in mind. This fact is powerful evidence that they were designed by intelligent designers.

On a side note, this omnipotence argument that you bring into the debate is a pathetic strawman. You people use it because your chosen adversary in this debate is a fundamentalist Christian young earth creationist. It shows your upbringing and your cowardice.

ToE offers a mechanism, a timeline, and two independent lines of evidence (genetic, fossil) that explains the observed patterns of similarity. ID offers "poof!".

That's your opinion and you are welcome to hold on to it and fight for it. From my perspective, TOE offers nothing other than "it could have happened a certain way over millions of years." It's pathetic chicken sh!t science, IMO. ID offers solid evidence for intelligent design. Deny this at your own detriment. I really don't care.

I can give you many different observations that would falsify ToE. Tell us Louis, what evidence would falsify the claim "the designer did it that way"?

I don't know about others but, to me, ID is not a theory in need of falsification. ID is an interpretation of the available evidence. As such it is a conclusion based on observation. Physicists, who are supposed to be scientists, have many interpretations based on observation (the Copenhagen and many world interpretations come to mind). Why can't biologists have interpretations based on observations? Are they not scientists too?

I know this comment may sound sarcastic, but I genuinely am interested in understanding the logic behind disregarding absolutely all of the scientific data which spans multiple disciplines. And I'd preferably like to be referred to non-proselytizing sources. I am interested in factual discourse, and the ensuing logical interpretations. Thank you.

The answer of course is that there is no logic. It's purely an emotional reaction by those with fundamentalist religious beliefs who feel threatened when reality contradicts their religious teachings. Their knee jerk response like what we see from Tedford here (emphasis on jerk) is to deny reality. Intelligent Design Creationists have made reality-denial into an art form. We see amazing mental gyrations, misrepresentations of evidence, hand waves, blustering rants, and outright lying all without the slightest attempt to understand the actual scientific case.

Logic and reason won't work with these sorry mooks because they didn't use logic and reason to get to their position in the first place. There's really nothing to be done about these fools except point and laugh, and smack them down if they try to force their crap into public science classes.

This is a weak and lame argument. We are talking about intelligent design here, not omnipotent design. An omnipotent being cannot design anything by definition.

Better tell that to Cornelius, Tedford, and Peter, and all the head IDiots like Dembski, Behe, Wells, etc. Their Designer is the onmipotent Christian GOD.

The use of a hierarchy is the quintessential design method used by intelligent beings. As someone who has made a living as a software engineer/designer, I can tell you that the primary method of software design is the use of a hierarchy

LOL! Why did I just *know* you were someone with zero training or understanding of actual evolutionary biology?

Biological systems certainly show signs of having been designed with hierarchy in mind. This fact is powerful evidence that they were designed by intelligent designers

That's a massive logic FAIL on your part.

1. Humans design sprinklers to water the lawn2. Rain showers water the lawn3. Therefore rain showers were intelligently designed.

Even my 10 year old niece can figure out what's wrong with that one.

From my perspective, TOE offers nothing other than "it could have happened a certain way over millions of years."

Why should science care about your ignorance-based layman's opinion?

I don't know about others but, to me, ID is not a theory in need of falsification.

Then ID is not a scientific theory and doesn't belong in a science classroom. It's a religious / philosophical position that is not dependent on evidence. Just as everyone who understands science has been saying.

ID is an interpretation of the available evidence.

Your can use a completely subjective "this looks designed to me" to fool yourself, but you certainly won't convince anyone in the scientific community with it.

Those two are highly complex, but are they specified? Is there a purposeful arrangement of parts? Are those designed?

Well, enough digression.

It is very hard to explain this without design.

If you don't know about the designer(s), it is easy to say that that is possible with design. But it is not easy to actually explain it with design.

Evolution is an attempt to explain the appearance of design wihtout actually coming on to design.

I think that's a reasonable representation, though I ignore its historical accurateness. Now, here we have a theory that actually attempts to explain the features of organisms, invoking the same principles that operate in the rest of nature. And evidence is also compatible with it!

Nat, which theory is more fruitful? Which theory is more parsimonious? With theory offers a better fit with the evidence?

I'm not sure what the point of the embryo photos is. They kind of, sort of look alike, but not as much as Haeckel's drawings. And this is just two species. Are you sure your not being selective, and picking two species that happen to look alike during fetal development, and rejecting more closely related that have different looking embryos? And they are very different at the gastrulization stage.

I never thought of designed things as ALWAYS being specified and complex. I don't see this as the argument.

The argument in favor of design is that WHEN we see specified complexity it is the result of intelligent action. This is not excluding the fact that designed objects don't have to be specified or complex.

Life is clearly very complex and very specified and functional at multiple levels.

I've asked this before many times of evolutionists. Can you name something that we know wasn't designed that is specified and complex?

They always come back with the answer: life.

Well, this is not helpful because if life is indeed the only example that evolutionists can give, then it must be the only exception to specified complexity not being designed. In a negative way, that really proves our point.

Other than saying, life, can you give an example of specified complexity that is known to be the result of non-intelligent action?

I guess I wasn't clear. Organisms have parts that function to keep the organism alive and reproducing. That is what I meant by purposeful. And by highly specified complexity, I mean things have to just so, or they don't work. It is really hard to exlain how these things came about without coming on to design. As far as knoaing the designer's purpose, various religions attempt to explain it. But I'm not sure that that is necessary. Archeaologists discover stuff that has no known purpose. They are still trying to explain the purpose of Stonehenge, cave paintings, neolithic statues, etc. No one says that these things were not designed because we don't know what the designer's purpose was. I know if I looked inside my computer, I would see a lot of things that I don't know the purpose of, but I know they were designed.

Neal:Other than saying, life, can you give an example of specified complexity that is known to be the result of non-intelligent action?

Well the problem is that Dembski defined CSI in such a way as to exclude everything but life. It's a rigged game and he made all the rules. Unfortunately for him, just about everybody outside of religious apologists thinks his game is pretty silly and the rules are bogus.

Calm down. I know you and nat do not think designed things are always highly specified and complex. I was being fastidious.

natschuster:

It is really hard to exlain how these things came about without coming on to design.

Again Nat, you're confusing the idea that specified complexity is possible under the design hypothesis (DH) with the task of explaining it using the DH.

As far as knoaing the designer's purpose, various religions attempt to explain it.

Yes, but that would not be science.

Archeaologists discover stuff that has no known purpose. They are still trying to explain the purpose of Stonehenge, cave paintings, neolithic statues, etc. No one says that these things were not designed because we don't know what the designer's purpose was.

OK. Let's say archaeologists don't know the purpose of those Stongehenge (though I do not know this to be true). What do the have for the design inference?

-They know humans inhabited the region.-They had some idea of the technology available.-They have other verified human artefacts to compare Stonehenge to.-Specifically they know other monumental structures made by humans.

What information do they have for attempting an explanation of Stonehenge configuration?

-They had some idea of the technology available.-They have information about the social organisation of the locals.-They have information about the religion, culture and lifestyle of the locals.

That is plenty of information. Is it the same with the DH applied to biology?

Louis: As someone who has made a living as a software engineer/designer, I can tell you that the primary method of software design is the use of a hierarchy. OOD is not something that software designers use just for grins and giggles. It turns out that using a class hierarchy is the most efficient and most trouble-free approach to software design.

If you've made a living as a software engineer/designer then you probably know that the Gang of Four (Gamma, Helm, Johnson and Vlissides) would disagree with this sort of blanket statement.

In many cases, inheritance is the wrong solution for specific aspects of complex systems. Composting, decoration, or a number of other patterns may be better suited. C++ allows for multiple inheritance and other languages, such as Java and Objective-C use interfaces and Protocols.

Furthermore, Object oriented programming is not a one size fits all solution. If you've written device drivers or worked with embedded systems, you'd know that the overhead of OOP is prohibitive in these cases.

Then there are functional languages, such as SQL. Erling has seen wide adaptation by the the telecom industry and massive web portals such as Facebook precisely because a functional approach is most efficient way to tackle specific types of computational problems. Scala and F# are up an coming languages in this space as well.

Louis: Biological systems certainly show signs of having been designed with hierarchy in mind. This fact is powerful evidence that they were designed by intelligent designers.

How the biological complexity we observe fits into your theodicy is not the sort of explanation we're referring to. Instead, what we're trying to explain is why hominids and great apes all have five fingers. Saying that's what the designer wanted doesn't add to the expiation of any particular concrete outcome. In fact, I'd suggest that ID is really a convoluted elaboration of evolutionary theory.

Louis: I don't know about others but, to me, ID is not a theory in need of falsification. ID is an interpretation of the available evidence. As such it is a conclusion based on observation. Physicists, who are supposed to be scientists, have many interpretations based on observation (the Copenhagen and many world interpretations come to mind). Why can't biologists have interpretations based on observations? Are they not scientists too?

Actually, the Copenhagen interoperation is an instrumentalist approach in that it explicitly and intentionally avoids playing a explanatory role, while the many worlds interpolation does offer an explanation.

In fact, the entire field of quantum computing is founded on a way to experimentally test the many worlds interpretation.

There are a few evolutionary folks that know their stuff well and they are NOT putting all their cards on the table. It is a shame when such people feel bound to the party-line because of money issues, career and peer pressure, or materialistic mandates.

This is interesting. Tell us more. Who are those duplicitous "evolutionary folks"? Please provide names and evidence about their views AND motivations.

I'm confident that what these folks talk about privately at coffee is not what the public is told.

Your confidence in "what these folks talk about privately" is a matter of conjecture, not evidence. Do you have any? Surprise us. (You know, evidence is the kind of thing that supports a claim.)

Norm, specified complexity was coined by Leslie Orgel, not Bill Dembski. Also, human designs often have specified complexity, so I don't follow you about "exclude everything but life". What are you talking about?

They kind of, sort of look alike, but not as much as Haeckel's drawings.

It wasn't the point to try to demonstrate that embryos are as similar as Haeckel's drawings showed. We knew the similarities in the drawings were exaggerated! The point was to show that they are actually similar.

And this is just two species. Are you sure your not being selective, and picking two species that happen to look alike during fetal development, and rejecting more closely related that have different looking embryos?

I'm sure. But I'm afraid if you don't have access to a wide variety of embryos I can only hope for you to trust me. But, think for a moment, is assuming contradictory evidence any better than ignoring contradictory evidence? Let's look at what we have in hand. If you find something else, let me know.

And they are very different at the gastrulization stage.

Yes, gastrulation is previous to the phylotypic stage, the moment when strong similarities emerge. I added a link to an article explaining this in the old thread. Check it, you'll find some surprises.

Neal, first you asked:Other than saying, life, can you give an example of specified complexity that is known to be the result of non-intelligent action?

Then you stated:specified complexity was coined by Leslie Orgel, not Bill Dembski.

But Orgel's original definition of "specified complexity" was to distinguish between living vs. non-living systems. So, you want us to use Orgel's original definition which was explicitly about life, but not give life as an example?

Like all evolutionists, you're just a know-it-all pompous ass. And yet, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. You should be ashamed that a layman like me can run rings around you.

Your can use a completely subjective "this looks designed to me" to fool yourself,

Subjective in your stupid opinion, of course. The fact remains that the existence of a hierarchy is evidence of design. You can't see it because you are too busy wrestling with fundamentalist Christian strawmen, your number one enemy. How lame.

but you certainly won't convince anyone in the scientific community with it.

And who says I want to convince anybody in the scientific community? The scientific community can kiss my @ss, for all I care. You people ain't all that. Stupid incestuous dictatorships can only last for so long. Eventually, the people rise up and kick their butts. I hope for your sake that you're learning a lesson from what's happening in the Middle East. A revolution is coming soon that will sweep you people aside. And it's coming from the one place that you least expect. See ya.

===Are there any books I can read which concisely refute each piece of evidence for evolution? ===

Most public libraries carry at least a few of the leading life science textbooks. You can find a better selection at most university bookstores.

===The reason I ask is because the arguments of commentors on this blog seem very one-sided to me in the sense that those arguing against evolution seem to be implying that absolutely every shred of positive evidence available means nothing.===

Well I would say there is substantial evidence for evolution, just as there is substantial evidence for geocentrism or that the earth is flat. Obviously scientific evidence should not be evaluated in a vacuum.

===I would love further reading where point-by-point the mountain of interdisciplinary evidence is thoroughly refuted. Does such literature exist?===

Yes, but you'll need a variety of texts to cover all the evidence. In some cases you'll need the relevant journal papers.

===I'm very interested in seeing exactly what "non-evolutionists" are basing their thoughts on while staring the available evidence in the face.===

There's no substitute for understanding the science. I'll be happy to try to explain any specific examples you may have in mind.

===I genuinely am interested in understanding===

That's the key. One must be genuinely interested and open minded to following the data. I'm sure you'll succeed.

Yeah, but you're not expecting it to come from there. In fact, you're not expecting to be knocked off your high horses any time soon. The reason is that you don't know who your real enemy is. You're fighting a strawman of your own choosing.

"I hope for your sake that you're learning a lesson from what's happening in the Middle East. A revolution is coming soon that will sweep you people aside. And it's coming from the one place that you least expect. See ya."

What a cliffhanger. Please tell us where the revolution is coming from. Should I transfer the billions from my Swiss bank accounts to a safer location?

Louis, you need to seek some professional mental health care. Surely in a good Christian nation that will be covered by universal insurance.

Most public libraries carry at least a few of the leading life science textbooks. You can find a better selection at most university bookstores.

If by "leading life science textbooks" you meant ID babble (because in real leading life science textbooks you won't find refutations of evolution), it depends on geography. Outside the US he's got a better chance with Amazon.

Btw, you're very modest not advertising your own book. I mean, for ID standards. Denise should learn a lesson from you.

While designers may create nested hierarchies, they certainly are under no requirement to do so.

Certainly. This is why ID stand for intelligent design, you mental midget. It takes an intelligent designer to figure out that the best design methodology for complex systems calls for a tree-like hierarchical structure.

While designers may create nested hierarchies, they certainly are under no requirement to do so.

Certainly. This is why ID stand for intelligent design, you mental midget. It takes an intelligent designer to figure out that the best design methodology for complex systems calls for a tree-like hierarchical structure.

The best design methodology for complex systems *doesn't* always call for a tree-like hierarchical structure. In fact it rarely does.

How about you show us the nested hierarchy for the parts in a jet aircraft?

When you say the "existence of a hierarchy", are you referring to the nested hierarchy we observe across species? if so, where does a designer actually fit into this process, if at all?

I am referring to both a nested hierarchy and a hierarchy in which members may borrow features from other members in a branch of the tree that diverged millions of years ago. I disagree that biological organisms only show a nested hierarchy. My understanding is that the echo location systems in whales and bats are almost identical even though the two species got separated long before echo location appeared in either branch of the tree.

This could be an example of multiple inheritance, a design technique that can only be achieved through intelligent design. I would not be surprised to find out that bats and whales used nearly identical echo location genes. This would kill the nested hierarchy prediction of Darwinian evolution and falsify it for all to see, if it hasn't already.

How about you show us the nested hierarchy for the parts in a jet aircraft?

Even though an aircraft is an exceedingly simple system compared to living organisms, I can tell you that manufacturers do indeed reuse previous designs in their new aircrafts. In fact, they do it all the time. A Boeing 747 has a lot in common with a DC-10. Just because you can't see the hierarchy does not mean it's not there.

BTW, are you a real scientist or are you playing one on this forum? Never mind. It does not matter. It's all the same.

Thornton: How about you show us the nested hierarchy for the parts in a jet aircraft?

Even though an aircraft is an exceedingly simple system compared to living organisms, I can tell you that manufacturers do indeed reuse previous designs in their new aircrafts. In fact, they do it all the time. A Boeing 747 has a lot in common with a DC-10.

Reusing the occasional part is not the same as a complete designed nested hierarchy. Weak evasion noted.

Just because you can't see the hierarchy does not mean it's not there.

You claimed "the best design methodology for complex systems calls for a tree-like hierarchical structure." But you can't show it to us. Just like the invisible evidence for intelligent design in nature you can't show.

I don't give a rat's @ss about what the scientific community gives a rat's @ss about, either. How about that?

Fine by me, but it pretty much kills any last chance of getting your Bible-particle nonsense looked at. Not that the woo had much of a chance anyway. You can always submit it to AIG or ICR. They'll publish any anti-science garbage on their site if it mentions The Bible or Jeebus.

Louis: It takes an intelligent designer to figure out that the best design methodology for complex systems calls for a tree-like hierarchical structure.

You seem to be conflating a number of terms and ideas.

First, it's not clear which complex system in biology you're referring to or how it maps to software development practices.

A OOP class hierarchy refers to a particular set of classes that inherit functionality from one or more superclasses. One of the ways this is beneficial is that you can can add or modify functionality at any point in a class hierarchy which are then inherited in all subclasses - this includes retroactive changes to subclasses that exist in the present, not just the future. Optimize a method in a superclass and that optimization increases the performance of all existing subclasses who continue to call that method. You can even reassign an object's superclass with a class from another branch or even a completely new class as long as is supports the same interface. This is common with model objects that which difference storage mechanism to persist data.

In Ruby you can actually modify or reassign a class's superclass while the application is running to change the behavior of a subclass at runtime. In language that lack this support you can use the composite pattern to provide similar functionality.

However, in the case of the biological complexity we observe there is no corresponding advantage.

For example present day hominids and great apes would not inherit changes a designer made to their common ancestor. This prevents a designer from rapidly making changes to the hierarchy. Nor could a designer "reassign" the common ancestor of hominids and great apes to some other branch in the tree or a completely new ancestor. Even if we could do either of these things, we have no common ancestors to change or reassign as they have gone extinct.

As such, there seems to be a significant disconnect between a tree of biological ancestors and an OOP class hierarchy.

Even if such a direct mapping was possible, there are a number of OOP design patters that may be better suited depending on the problem you're trying to solve as class hierarchies can result in tightly-coupled systems which can be difficult to maintain and extend. The decorator pattern is just one such example. Furthermore, functional and procedural languages can be better suited for different domains and environments in regards to efficiency, expression, reduced overhead, etc.

OOP also consists of the encapsulation of data, message passing, the ability to model software based on real-world objects, etc. which does not rely on class inheritance. In other words, your claim that inheritance is the "the best design methodology for complex systems" is inaccurate.

OOP also consists of the encapsulation of data, message passing, the ability to model software based on real-world objects, etc. which does not rely on class inheritance. In other words, your claim that inheritance is the "the best design methodology for complex systems" is inaccurate.

I disagree, of course. You seem to be grasping at straws trying to prove to yourself that the use of a class hierarchy is not the best approach to complex system design but you are only fooling yourself. I don't buy it for a minute and I am not the only one.

Any message passing or data encapsulation that occurs in a class is automatically inherited by a subclass. Why reinvent the wheel when all you need to do is use inheritance to reuse an existing class that has already been designed, tested and debugged? This is the primary advantage of using a class hierarchy to design multiple generations of similar products. This is the reason that various software organizations have created large class libraries that can be reused by other designers. It makes absolute sense that a designer of biological organisms would use the same approach. Deny at your own detriment.

Moving right along, it is generally considered a bad idea in OOP design to modify a superclass unless it is for debugging purposes. The best way to add functionality in a design is through the creation of new subclasses.

Of course, this does not mean that this is a law set in stone. If an important functionality was overlooked during the construction of a super class and if the best way to correct it is by modifying the class, by all means, go for it. Consider that any intelligent being or group of intelligent beings sufficiently advanced to engineer complex life on earth would also have the ability to use simulations to try out different things before a final design is released. Still, I suppose that many mistakes were made (I'm not one of those unthinking Christians who believe that the designers were omnipotent and omniscient since that would preclude the need to design anything) during the millions of years that it took to create life on earth and the designers may have been forced to cause entire "defective" or unwanted lineages to become extinct on many occasions. Indeed, there is ample evidence in the fossil records for multiple mass extinction events in the past. Something for us IDers to think about.

Louis: I disagree, of course. You seem to be grasping at straws trying to prove to yourself that the use of a class hierarchy is not the best approach to complex system design but you are only fooling yourself. I don't buy it for a minute and I am not the only one.

No, I'm NOT grasping at straws. I'm noting that the "best" approach varies depending on exactly what sort of complex system you're trying to design. Class inheritance can be a very powerful pattern in architecting applications. but it's one of many patterns. Of course, everything looks like a nail if all you have in your belt is a hammer.

Have you ever tried to develop highly parallel applications, such as massively threaded server applications using OOP and threads or even procedural languages?

Erlang is a functional language designed by Sony Ericson specifically to develop complexly telephony applications. Erlang apps can automatically take advantage of multiple CPU cores or even RPC / Distributed computing. You can even hot-swap server logic in mission critical production servers.

Apparently, Google, Amazon and Facebook are fooling themselves as they chose Erlang (a functional language) over a class hierarchy. Of course, you know better, right?

Louis: Any message passing or data encapsulation that occurs in a class is automatically inherited by a subclass.

Or, like Erlang, you could just bake highly concurrent interprocess message passing into the language, rather than implement it into a root Object base class. Again it depends on the problem you're trying to solve.

Louis: Why reinvent the wheel when all you need to do is use inheritance to reuse an existing class that has already been designed, tested and debugged?

Have you read the seminal Design Patterns book by the Gang of Four (Gamma, Helm, Johnson, Vlissides)? You don't need to subclass an object to use it. Nor is it subclassing always desirable.

For example, I'm currently developing a universal iPad/iPhone application using Apple's iOS frameworks which are developed in Objective-C. A common patten is to create delegate objects which implement a protocol rather than create subclasses.

Rather than individual subclass of UIButton for each control on the screen, you use the target - action pattern. Rather than subclass UITable view, you create a class that implements UITableViewDelgate and UITableViewDataSource protocols. Rather than create multiple CALayer subclasses to perform custom drawing, you can create a single delegate class that implements drawLayer:inContext: and issue different drawing commands for each layer passed to the method. You can also swap the delegate at runtime, which you cannot do using subclasses.

If you have five hundred layers that draw slightly different content, do you want to create five hundred subclasses? Of course not.

Sometimes you can't subclass an existing object because the implementation doesn't support serialization or the particular class of object cannot be varied because it's being vended to you by code you cannot control. Or you might need to inherit from another superclass to support a particular persistence frameworks. In these cases you can use composition, decoration or even Objective-C categories, rather than inheritance.

Louis: This is the reason that various software organizations have created large class libraries that can be reused by other designers. It makes absolute sense that a designer of biological organisms would use the same approach. Deny at your own detriment.

Again, please see above. Not only do you not need to subclass objects to use these libraries, but it's often very undesirable. I don't want to create five UIButton subclasses just so each button can respond differently when tapped. Are you sure you're develop software for a living?

Louis: Moving right along, it is generally considered a bad idea in OOP design to modify a superclass unless it is for debugging purposes. The best way to add functionality in a design is through the creation of new subclasses.

So, when Apple ports it's Objective-C framework from PPC to Intel to ARM, it should create a specific subclass for each architecture NSPPCObject, NSX86Object, NSARMObject? Apple shouldn't optimize methods in existing superclasses, but create distinct subclasses?

If we followed you're logic we'd get multiple subclasses for each optimization: NSArray, NSFasterArray, NSReallyFastArray, NSSuperFastArray, NSMegaFastArray, NSUltraFastArray, etc. Want to take advantage of this optimization? Then you need to go through your entire application and switch from NSReallyFastArray to NSUltraFast array. Don't forget that for each one of these optimizations you'd also have platform versions as well as they inherit from their platform specific subclass. So you'd have NSPPCFasterArray for PPC, NSX86FasterArray on Intel and NSARMFasterArray for the iPhone and iPad.

Is this really the "best" way to build complex systems?

Louis: Of course, this does not mean that this is a law set in stone. If an important functionality was overlooked during the construction of a super class and if the best way to correct it is by modifying the class, by all means, go for it.

When Apple switched to backed NSViews using CoreAnimation layers in version 10.5, they didn't provide an entirely new NSLayerBackedView hierarchy to developers - they added several new methods and properties for accessing layers to the existing NSView class hiearchy. They also added a number of methods NSView to perform animations, rather than creating a new NSAnimatableView hierarchy.

This was not important functionary they "missed' the first time, but a significant upgrade to the entire underlying view system to support lightweight layer backed drawing.

Apparently, you know better than Apple, and many other framework developers, that do the same thing.

Furthermore, software and biological inheritance is radically different. If I create a subclass of UIButton to change how it looks, rather than what it does when I tap it, it only implements the part of the overall button functionality that has changed. If I do not link to the library that contains the UIButton superclass, my code will not build. If the library is not present at runtime, the button cannot be instantiated.

This is not the case with biological inheritance. The DNA of human beings and great apes contain all of the functionality, not just the delta. Biological subclasses do not stop functioning if their "superclass" (common ancestor) has gone extinct. As such, this is similar to making a copy of the the source code of the superclass, renaming it as a new class and modifying it, rather than the software class hierarchy you're referring to.

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make and I don't have the time to figure it out. I simply argued that intelligently designed objects inherit features from previously designed objects. Why? Because it is an extremely efficient approach that saves the designer the need to reinvent the wheel at every step. In software engineering, this is called object oriented programming. Inheritance, if depicted on a diagram, creates a tree-like structure. This is trivial.

Why do you want to complicate a simple idea with unnecessary details? It seems to me that you are just showing off your programming knowledge. I've been in this business way too long to be impressed.

In sum, I am saying that a hierarchy is an essential aspect of intelligent design. So, if a hierarchy is found in biological systems, it should be seen as evidence for ID. That's all I'm saying. I don't care if you disagree. I made my point.

Louis: I really have no idea what point you're trying to make and I don't have the time to figure it out.

Louis, I'm not making assertions. I'm making an argument and providing examples. As to the points I'm making…

- Class inheritance can be a poor way to develop specific types of complex systems. Highly parallel and concurrent systems are just one example. We have concrete examples of industry adoption of functional systems over OOP by major players.

- You don't need to use inheritance to prevent reinventing the wheel. You can use delegation, composting, decorating or a number of other patterns. See Design Patterns, Gamma, et. all.

- Using inheritance as you advocated can result in a convoluted mess.

- You're conflated object oriented class inheritance with biological common ancestry, which is the analog of duplicating the source file for a class, renaming it and modifying. If you consider this a good example of object oriented programming, then you've revealed your ignorance of good design and development practices.

Louis: In sum, I am saying that a hierarchy is an essential aspect of intelligent design. So, if a hierarchy is found in biological systems, it should be seen as evidence for ID. That's all I'm saying. I don't care if you disagree. I made my point.

Again, It's the wrong kind of hierarchy nor is it essential for an intelligent designer to use this sort of hierarchy, as Thorton has already pointed out.

CH wrote: The rule of thumb for evolutionary thinking is that the evidence must reveal that a fully naturalistic origins narrative is compelling. In other words, natural law is sufficient to explain all of origins. Evolutionists do not say that the cosmos were designed but then here on earth life evolved with no design.

Cornelius,

If I remember correctly, you have a Ph.D. in biophysics or some such from a respectable institution and even published a few papers in the mainstream scientific journals. You must have at least some idea about how science works. And if you do then you should be acutely aware that no branch of science claims to explain everything in nature.

Evolutionary biology deals with the diversity of the living forms. It makes no claims about the origin of the Universe. You understand that, do you?

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/